Dear Ms. Peduzzi:

            I, the undersigned, as a resident of Vermont, strongly object to Verizon siting a cell tower and base station on Barton Mountain due to the extremely negative aesthetic and economic impact that this installation would have.  Siting this tower on Barton Mountain will trigger secondary land use impact consequences, cause a proliferation of towers on the mountain, and will change the character of the area forever. A 75 foot radio tower awaits approval for Barton Mountain's ridgeline.  What other type of tower will be next? A decision to approve the Verizon cell tower on this site will effectively be an approval of multiple towers on Barton's ridgelines.

            Barton Mountain is the most intrusive site that could be chosen. Much less intrusive sites are available.  As you know, the Barton Mountain Alliance asked Mr. Roger L. Boyell, of Moorestown, New Jersey, a forensic analyst and expert in electronics and communication systems to perform an analysis of engineering coverage using Verizon’s own data submitted for the project.  His report points up a major flaw in the Verizon application.  Effectively no cell service will be provided to Barton Village, Orleans Village, or businesses on Route 5 between the two villages.  Only partial coverage will be afforded to I-91.              

          Why choose Barton Mountain if the population centers will not get cell service?   How can we justify marring the ridge lines of Barton Mountain, especially when alternative sites with willing landowners have been found in areas that will provide cell service to the population centers and major routes?  The current Vermont Telecommunications Plan of September 2004 stresses providing cell service to the main travel routes and population centers first.